I havn’t done a “how would I answer this chat question” from The Washington Post’s Tom Boswell in a while, but on the back of his 11/26/12 “Stay the Course” opinion piece in the Washington Post (where he basically advises that the team should stay out of the major FA market this off-season), I thought I’d chime in and read/respond to his 11/26/12 chat.

My opinion on Boswell’s piece; I don’t think you can stand pat in today’s baseball world. Yes this team won 98 games last year. But does anyone think we’ll win 98 games again by doing little to nothing to address the team’s needs? Trying to replace Adam LaRoche and Edwin Jackson‘s departures internally has a large chance of weakening the team, and I believe we need to explore a significant FA purchase (or a trade) this off-season. Now, inarguably TV deals and the rising revenue streams are fueling the FA market, and we’re already seeing contracts that heretofore would have been immediately labeled as “over pays.” Therefore, even if the Nats go after a 2nd or 3rd tier player in free agency, they’re going to be compensated far more than we ever thought their value represented. But this is just the way the baseball world is going; we can no longer say that someone is “overpriced” … we need to remember that everyone is going to be “overpriced.” Perhaps Jayson Werth‘s $126M/7yr deal will look like a bargain in a few years.

And this is before even addressing the impact that the amazing new Los Angeles Dodger’s TV deal, reportedly worth between $6 and $7 billion dollars over 25 years, will have on the baseball world. Even at the low-end estimate, that’s $240M a year in RSN revenue. $240M a year! They could field a $200M team, pay luxury taxes and still have money to spare under this deal, and that’s before a single dollar in gate, game-day revenues, suites, parking or merchandising comes in. To call this a “game-changer” is an understatement; I think this could be a serious issue facing Baseball in the coming years. We’re already seeing what the new ownership group is capable of doing in terms of acquiring talent without much regard to payroll. What happens if they also acquire the likes of Josh Hamilton and Zack Greinke this coming winter? A quick check of Cot’s page shows that Los Angeles has $169.5M committed to its top 14 players right now, with three guys making > 20M and nine total with pay > $11M/year. And they’re reportedly in the mix for the top FAs this off-season, potentially adding 20-30M more to that base number. That’s amazing. Just more revenue sharing for Jeffrey Loria to pocket I guess (Thanks Bud!).

Anyway, back to the chat responses. As always, I write my response before reading his, and sometimes edit questions here for clarity/conciseness. I’m only answering baseball-related questions, ignoring the slew of Redskins issues.

Q: Are the Nats positioning themselves to make a strong push in the next two drafts?

A: This is what I whittled down a long-winded, rambling “question” to. The gist is that a comp pick from Adam LaRoche leaving, plus another potential comp pick if Michael Morse leaves next year could help re-stock the farm system. I’d tend to say, “maybe.” The Nats are no longer where they were in 2009 and 2010, getting franchise players by virtue of back to back awful seasons. So the likelihood of finding an impact player is far less. That being said, having multiple first and supplemental first round picks is a great way to find players and to get guys who “slipped” due to signability/injury issues (as Lucas Giolito did this year).

The Nats farm system has taken some hits in the last two seasons; one from trade (losing 4 top-10 players in the Gio Gonzalez trade) and then another from injury concerns for its top guys (Sammy Solis, Matthew Purke, Lucas Giolito, and Anthony Rendon all representing 1st and 2nd round talents who suffered either season-ending injuries or significant injuries curtailing their progression in the last calendar year, to say nothing of injuries to lower-level guys like Taylor Jordan who will provide depth rising up). This thinned farm system may prevent Rizzo from making the kind of deal he made last summer, and he may want to focus on getting some more depth in the 2013 draft, as much as is possible from drafting so low.

Here’s the issue writing my own response before reading Boswell’s: he didn’t even talk about the draft portion of the “question,” instead talking about the FA pitcher angle.

Q: What do you think the team is planning on doing to replace Edwin Jackson?

A: I’d guess the team is working on two fronts: one looking at possible trade angles with teams that have surplus starting pitching (Arizona, Tampa Bay, Oakland, Los Angeles Dodgers and perhaps even Atlanta) and seeing if he can swing a deal. Then I’d guess he’s looking at a 2nd tier of starters, looking to avoid the Greinke sweepstakes (despite his affinity for the hurler). I do NOT think the team is going to tender John Lannan, instead looking to get a better pitcher for slightly more money than the $5M he’d likely earn at a minimum in 2013. Of course, with the prices we’ve seen for lefties already perhaps we will tender Lannan and consider another $5M insurance policy a bargain. Boswell scrolls through the same 2nd tier of starters, noting that there’s definitely someone out there who could work. He also mentioned the team may look at re-signing Zach Duke, though I’d be surprised by that. Why would we re-sign Duke but non-tender Lannan, if Lannan clearly is a better pitcher?

Q: Is the lack of a MASN deal hindering the Nats FA plans?

A: You have to think it is. If the Nats knew what they were getting next year, they’d certainly have a better idea of how much they could spend. The fact that Bud Selig has allowed Peter Angelos to hijack this MASN revenue negotiation for this long is deplorable. Of course, by waiting this long with the negotiations Angelos has only cost himself money, as the price we can command as a franchise certainly skyrocketed between the end of 2011 and now. So there’s that. But its clear the team is getting a pittance as compared to other comparably sized markets (Houston, Philadelphia) and needs a larger share. Boswell doesn’t think the lack of a deal is affecting the team’s plans, mostly because there’s not a $250M player on the market this year as there was last year.

Q: Were you invited to any of the seven off-season Nationals player weddings?

A: I wasn’t. Boswell wasn’t either.

Q: Why did the MLB allow the Marlins trade to go through? It poisons Miami against baseball probably for a decade and will surely be seen as a cautionary tale for city governments for at least as long.

A: Simple reason: Selig is buddies with Jeffrey Loria and has enabled his crummy behaviors for nearly 2 decades. More complex reason: on the face of it, from a purely baseball sense this trade was little different than the Boston-Los Angeles trade, and I’d guess you would have a hard time accepting one and denying the other. Loria’s position with Miami is not Selig’s concern; he got the new stadium that Selig claims is necessary in every market and Loria clearly will continue to profit from the team. To an owner, that’s the primary concern. And Selig works for the owners. All of us bloggers and columnists to deplored the trade and Loria in general (including me, in this space in September and again in November) and talk about the sanctity of the game are just blowing hot-air. Selig doesn’t care. Boswell didn’t really answer the question, just saying that baseball is dead in Miami for a long, long time. Hey, it only helps the Nats to have a 110 loss team in the division, right?

Q: Is Adam LaRoche destined for the AL as an aging 1st baseman?

A: I don’t think so; the questioner compared LaRoche to Adam Dunn, who can DH and is more valuable in the AL. Inarguably aging sluggers fare better in the AL … but LaRoche just won a gold glove for his defense at first base. He isn’t exactly a plodding first baseman slowed by age. He should be able to capably play the position for several more years, through whatever contract he’s about to sign. Boswell agrees that this is the trend, and says that Baltimore is a possible destination … but mentions nothing about LaRoche’s plus defense.

Q: Why aren’t the Nats making a bigger play for Edwin Jackson?

A: A good question. I questioned the Nats lack of a Qualifying Offer being extended to Jackson and surmised it was because the team was afraid he’d take it (having a history of working on one-year deals). So clearly the lack of the Q.O. indicates a new direction for the team. I don’t think its related to his meltdown in the post-season; that can happen to anyone (see most of our pitching staff not named Ross Detwiler). I’d guess that it relates somehow to Jackson’s maddening capabilities; shutdown power pitcher one night, gopher-ball machine the next. I think they’re just going in a different direction. Boswell says Jackson wants a 5-year deal … which if true even more reinforces my questioning of the lack of the Q.O. I disagree with his sentiment that the team is “saving room” for the rising farm system arms; to me a prospect starter is not a solution until the day he arrives in the majors and gives you 30 starts.

Q: Why did Tampa extend Evan Longoria?

A: The team had him under baseball’s most team-friendly contract (6yrs, $17.5M with three team options, locking him to Tampa from 2008 til 2016). One of baseball’s best players, he made just $2M and $4.5M in the last two seasons. Which is just ridiculous. I feel Tampa did the extension to show good faith to the player who was just so woefully underpaid. Boswell didn’t really answer the question, just saying its a good move because hitters come back from injury better than pitchers.

Q: Should the team be worried about losing LaRoche and his lefty power?

A: Yes absolutely. Which is why the team should either try to get him to sign a reasonable deal (3 years max) OR the team should let him walk and try to replace the lefty power on the FA market (perhaps in the form of someone like Nick Swisher, who won’t be cheap but also can stick in LF for a while and should fit in nicely to the clubhouse). Or maybe the team swings a deal for a lefty outfielder in trade and sticks Morse at first. Boswell agrees, thinking that LaRoche’s hot FA market will get him a 4 year deal for more money than the Nats are willing to pay.

Q: Is there any chance that MASN just cuts ties with the Nats and frees us from the awful deal?

A: No. Chance. In. Hell. Angelos stands to get such massive, major profit from this deal that he’ll die before giving in. There is just no way. And more and more its looking like this pact with the devil, which enabled the team to move here, will be a limiting factor in the years to come. People talk about how Atlanta has the worst TV deal in the MLB? Well what about the Nats? Boswell asked Selig about this and was told that “everything is on the table.” I highly doubt that, but I’m not going to call Boswell a liar. I’ll just say, “Don’t hold your breath” that the Nats will be allowed to extract themselves from MASN and create their own RSN. This would be the absolute dream scenario, but I just cannot see Selig backpeddaling on this deal less than a decade after it was signed.

Q: Will the Nats learn the lessons heeded by other big-money teams who got saddled with old, expensive players?

A: Hopefully so. Not giving LaRoche 4 years would be a signal to that end. But it can be difficult; what happens when the whole core of our young team hits free agency? That’s a lot of big checks to write, and the fan base will bemoan every star that is allowed to walk. Boswell thinks LaRoche is consistent enough to warrant the contract, but also notes that he’s several years past the typical hitter prime.

Q: Is Morse really the better choice at 1B if it’s between him and Moore? Is he really just that bad in the OF?

A: I’m convinced this narrative is overplayed. Morse was a shortstop coming up through the minors, so he’s not exactly immobile, and suddenly nobody remembers that Tyler Moore was a plodding minor league first-baseman who only tried LF for the first time in spring training of last year. Now suddenly Morse isn’t the better LF option? I don’t buy it. Neither are great LF choices; Morse had a -23.3 UZR/150 in 493 innings while Moore had a -22.7 in 229 innings this past season (small sample sizes both). So it seems they’re both awful out there. But then again (as I’ve said many times) you can “hide” guys in LF if they’re big bats. You take the lesser defense in order to get a middle-of-the-order hitter. The last thing you want is a #8 hitter (think Xavier Nady) bumbling around in LF and hitting .190. If we lose LaRoche, I think the team should put Moore back in his natural position at 1B and let Morse get one more season out there. Boswell didn’t answer the question, instead rambling about something else.

22 Responses to 'Ask Boswell 11/26/12 Edition'

Subscribe to comments with RSS
or TrackBack to 'Ask Boswell 11/26/12 Edition'.

Tom doesn’t really follow the draft & farm system enough to give an opinion. Credit him for not talking about stuff he doesn’t know.

I’m going to have to respectfully disagree with you on Jackson. At Labor Day, I thought that he was a definite re-sign, but a lousy September & another lousy postseason means he’s going to tease somebody else this year. You can blame youth and inexperience for the Nats starters being so lousy against the Cards. At least a little. Jackson has proven to be always lousy in the postseason and the Nats have ambitions going forward.

The narrative on LaRouche is … with LaRouch, Morse, & Moore, one will be gone in 2013. Which one do you pick? I’m not sure the answer but that’s your choice.

Perhaps Rizzo and Jackson had a gentleman’s agreement that if the club didn’t offer the latter a long-term extension after the season, he would be granted full free agency without arbitration and, thus, not hurt the player’s value in the open market. Remember, there was a rumored 3-year deal sitting on the table from the Pirates last winter, but which Jackson reportedly declined to sign here in the hope he would earn a more lucrative contract this off-season.

You disagree on which point with Jackson? You think that the team isn’t re-signing him solely on his poor September and Post-season? I can see that too. I can also see this point: $11M for a 5th starter is way too much.

To get TO the playoffs you need 5 decent starters. Or, you need 4 good starters and a 5th mediocre starter (arguably the case with the Nats in 2012). Or you can have 3 great starters and 2 more average starters. But, once you get into the playoffs your 5th starters is irrelevant. So, the point should be to not overspend too much on your 5th starter, but to have someone good enough to get you a .500 record in his starts so that your 4 leading guys can carry you to the playoffs.

Speaking of # starters … I used to maintain a meticulously administered xls of starter positions and who the Nats were facing. I.e., looking at philly’s roster and saying that Halliday is #1, Lee #2, Hamels #3, Kendrick #4 and Blandon #5 and then seeing how the Nats did against the “Aces” of the league. It was fun, but a total pain to keep. Perhaps next year i’ll start it back up.

LaRoche/Morse/Moore; why can’t we have all three? Of course, I only want LaRoche on my terms; 2 year deal, perhaps 3rd option. But he has no incentive to do that deal.

Completely fair point. With the protection going from top-half to just top-10 draft picks, and with teams placing such a premium on their first rounders lately, this could absolutely be the case.

I wonder though … was Jackson’s firing of Boras mid-season significant? It seems to me that Boras didn’t “try” to get him the 3 year deal he wanted, since Boras had so many other high profile FA clients last off-season Would you want to sign a 3 year deal in Pittsburgh? They havn’t had a winning season since the early 90s. Maybe its that simple.

I was troubled by Boswell’s column. The idea of “standing pat” this offseason seems like a really bad idea to me. You can’t just shed pieces from a 98-win team and expect to stay a 98-win team. I can see letting Jackson walk—his postseason was it for me—but replacing him with a guy who’s never started in the majors before? Agreed that $11M is absurd money for a fifth starter, but aren’t we past the years when we’re relying on untested players in the regular season? Once your window of opportunity opens and you win your division, shouldn’t you be going for a championship every year until that window closes? I’m not saying they should sign Greinke (way too expensive), but doing nothing feels like taking a step backward, particularly since you cannot count on another injury-free season from your starters. I can see the argument for replacing LaRoche internally, but not Jackson, especially since Lannan and CMW will also be gone.

Completely agree. I think the Nats were amazingly lucky in terms of starting pitcher injuries last year (150 of 162 starts made by their top 5, and that number would have been slightly higher had the team not given 5 of Detwiler’s starts to Wang). I think you have to anticipate at least some time lost to one of the returning 4 in 2012 .. which to me is a decent reason to re-sign Lannan and use him as insurance yet again in 2013, in addition to acquiring at least another starter from somewhere.

I think the FA market will be crazy, I think Greinke will get far too much money for what he can bring, and yeah the Nats may stay away. Its why I think they’ll pull off a trade somehow for the pitching they need.

If we had someone of the likes of Solis/Meyer/Purke having just finished a solid AA season, and possibly ready to make the jump to the majors like Zimmermann did in 09, then yeah we could just fill from within. But we’re not htere; we need a one year solution. Perry? Garcia? risks.

I like the idea of getting someone like Nick Swisher on a 3-4 year deal, moving Morse to 1B and keeping Moore/Bernadina as super subs. Then in 2014 you have first base open and have options; you could move Zimmerman there and put Rendon at third. You could put Moore at first, leave Zim at 3rd, and put Rendon in left. You could package someone in trade if it turns out we have surplus hitters.

Swisher is only 384 days younger than LaRoche. He’s a better player and more versatile (can play multiple OF positions plus 1B and switch hit), but do you really think year 4 of Swisher is going to be better than year 3 of LaRoche? Swisher will also be more expensive per year.

Those issues notwithstanding, signing Swisher improves defense in LF by a lot more than replacing LaRoche with Morse hurts defense at 1B, not to mention that LF is a more important defensive position than 1B. On balance, I’d probably prefer 3-4 years of more expensive Swisher to 2-3 years of less expensive LaRoche, but it’s probably a close question.

Related: if the opening day 2012 plan is a LF platoon of the Shark and Tyler Moore, how worried would you be? You can assume that some of the money saved went to one of the better non-Greinke SPs.

I agree with you that there is something up with the MASN deal. On its face, it looks like the Nats have a very strong position. Plus, it is pretty clear that Selig doesn’t like Angelos. But it drags on and on, and I don’t think it is just fear over Angelos’ litigation tendencies. I remember reading somewhere ( but couldn’t find it after a quick Internet search) that MASN’s position is that the formula for calculating the fee isn’t just to use current deals in comparable markets, but was somehow tied to a specific methodology used in earlier cable deals that would essentially allow them to ignore the current deals going on. If true, this will be a tough nut to crack.

The reason that I think they are more likely to keep Zack Duke next year than Lannan (the tender decision aside, as they might still want to try to trade John), is that I think he can work effectively out of the BP. I think Rizzo will be looking for as many creative ways to have starter options when the inevitable injuries occur, and with no MLB ready/proven talent in Syracuse, I think Zack in the BP gives them another credible option (probably better than Gorzo). My guess is Zack in the ML BP, Garcia as a starter in Syracuse, and sign a 1-2 year option for 5th starter (maybe someone like Dempster, Marcum, or a trade).

On the topic of position players, I agree with Boz, and disagree with you. I think the Nats can absolutely “stand pat” and get the improvement they need to stay as competitive with just the likely steady improvement in their young players. Bryce, TyMo, Danny, and Lombo could all contribute significantly more next year. Also, while they were incredibly lucky with pitcher health, I would also say that they were unluckier than average with injuries on the position player side. If Ramos, Morse and Werth have normal years healthwise, that by itself would also go a long way toward making up for the loss of LaRoche. If they go into the year with Moore, Bernadina and maybe even Corey Brown competing for time in LF, and then upgrade at the trade deadline if none of them step up, I think that would still be a very strong lineup.

I agree with Dave on the reasons the team may keep resign Duke over keeping Lannan. He was able to be used out of the bullpen and will cost half of what Lannan is set to make. Davey seemed to like having 3 lefties in the pen last season so if you have Duke, Gorzelanny and add or resign another you have that option and you also maintain some emergency starter depth.

Derek, Swisher may not make much more per year than LaRoche if he makes more at all. LaRoche is coming off a silver slugger and a gold glove and there are zero other reliable first base options on the market. Swisher does provide versatility but I wouldn’t be shocked if he and LaRoche sign very similar contracts annual salary wise. I think Swisher is a better fit at this point than LaRoche from a baseball perspective. Swisher can play LF/RF/1B. He does all at a pretty average level and won’t hurt you at any of those positions. He is a switch hitter and he gets on base. The flexibility to move him around really keeps things fluid for the team where LaRoche creates a logjam at some point in his next contract if he resigns. The only think that makes me want to see LaRoche come back is the sentimental side of things.

I’ve noticed the Nationals have signed Fernando Abad and Bobby Bramhall recently. Minor league deals with invites. Both lefty relievers. Bramhall is interesting. Looks like he was just converted last season. Good to see them grabbing up some options on no risk moves.

I’ve thought about this fact, and for some reason I “trust” Swisher to “age better” than LaRoche. Perhaps its LaRoche’s 2011 injury, perhaps its his lack of mobilty versus Swisher’s ability to play multiple positions (both corner OF plus 1B). I’m also really concerned about locking down 1B for the next 3-4 years. I truly think we’re going to need to stick Zimmerman at first sometime soon. I also think Morse or Moore doesn’t really belong in LF and we need to find a real outfield solution at some point. Maybe the answer is Goodwin in CF, pushing Harper to right and Werth to left. That’d be a pretty good outfield too.

If we let LaRoche walk, spent a ton on a FA 5th starter and had Moore/Bernadina in left, i’d say two things: we would still be very right handed, especially middle of the order. And, Morse/Moore better step up. Bernadina had a great 2012; is he a full time player? if he was, and could keep his high OBP at leadoff we’d be doing great. Moore was great in a short sample size; can he do that for a full season? Scouts really don’t think so, and have hated on Moore for years.

Boswell alluded to the possibilty of extracting the Nats from the MASN deal … cryptically saying that Selig told him that “anything is on the table.” But that’d be Selig pulling money out of Angelos’ wallet, and opening MLB up for a lawsuit as you say. MLB has not reacted well to ownership/cities suing them; Seattle sued when the Pilots left and MLB just gave them another team. If Angelos sues over this? What a mess.

If Duke is better than Gorzelanny, then why did Gorzelanny make the team and Duke sat in AAA the whole season? I don’t buy that argument. Unless the decision was to purposely weaken the MLB bullpen so as not to waste Gorzelanny’s $2.3M salary? That doesn’t make sense.

No; i think the team signed Duke late (beleive it was like the day before the season started) as a last chance shot for the player, he looked great (in AAA) and was rewarded with a 9/1 call up. I think Duke will be looking for another starter job, not to stay with this team and become a one-out guy. Same with Lannan; he’s a starter. The team needs both a 5th starter and loogy’s …

Btw, I’m also of the opinion that the whole “bullpen guy who can start” story is overplayed too. Reason? Because both Stammen and Gorzelanny in the bullpen are converted starters … but both never pitched much more than a couple innings and even when Gorzelanny got a spot start he only went 4 … once you’ve pitched out of the bullpen for a season you can’t just snap your fingers and throw 7 innings. You need to get stretched out, change your preparation, and get back onto the 5-day cycle.

Standing pat is a risk, no doubt. If we lose LaRoche, are we sure Morse can return to his 30 homer form? (Scouts don’t think so). Can Moore in LF contribute what Morse did in 2012? (Scouts hate Moore, think he’s got massive holes in his swing). Is Desmond’s 2012 his new norm or is he regressing to 2011 form? Has Espinosa peaked or can he make the leap like Desmond did? What bone is Zimmerman breaking in 2013? Bernadina was far better in 2012 than he’s been historically; which Bernadina do we get in 2013?

More likely what the Nats face by standing pat is this: they suffer pitching injuries instead of positional injuries in 2013 (the reverse of what befell them in 2012). Except, we have practically no pitching depth in the system. If we had 2-month injuries to (say) Gonzalez and Detwiler in spring training, who would possibly take their place in the rotation? Perry? Maya? Lannan? That’s the bigger concern for me.

We may have a Bowden-esque cattle call for loogy in 2013. These two guys, plus maybe Duke, Gorzelanny/Lannan if they’re tendered. How about McCoy, VanAllen and Testa from AA as well? The’ve got two lefty starters in AA; Ballard (a minor league vet) and Rosenbaum … maybe give one of those guys a shot too?

When I said that Duke was “probably better than Gorzelanny”, I was specifically thinking in terms of ability to step in as a 6th starter at this point, and not saying he was an overall better reliever. Just thinking that Gorzo (and Stammen) are 1 year farther away from the starting role (and I agree with you that it seems like it would get harder and harder to stretch out as time passes). Also, as PDowdy said, I don’t think it is Gorzo OR Duke, but I think they both could fit (with a LOOGY also). My main point was that Duke gives more flexibility than Lannan, since he seemed to do well moving between starter and reliever in Sept (and would presumably be able to be signed at a reasonable reliever price, at a time when lefty reliever pricetags are skyrocketing).

Fair enough. My response was probably reactionary to something peric the troll posted related to how he thought Duke was going to make the post-season roster in place of Gorzelanny.

If Duke is willing to accept the long-man/spot-starter/loogy at times role, then yeah he’d be a great fit. Of course, its no lock that he comes back here. He’s a FA and he’s certainly seeing the same gold-rush of FA dollars that everyone else sees. More and more I’m thinking that despite reservations about the players, both Lannan and Gorzelanny need to be tendered just because of their southpaw-status.

I would be utterly shocked if Gorzelanny is non-tendered. I was hoping the team would be able to trade Lannan to a team like Minnesota or Cleveland for a loogy. Maybe they still can pull it off with Cleveland since they just DFAed Rafael Perez. They need starters. We need lefty relievers. Win win! haha